7. Conclusions and next steps
Although only 99 respondents completed the online survey and thus the overall sample size is small making extrapolation of the results difficult, it is a valid representation of the responses received. The small sample size does have to be taken into account when looking at the results; however, as percentages of responses to each question from the number of respondents, it is an accurate reflection of what those people in each category answered and considered as important or not important in regard to the proposals and should not simply be discounted due to the small number of completed surveys.
When asked whether respondents agreed with the proposed additional HMO licensing scheme, 36.4% overall strongly agreed with the proposals. The majority of those agreeing with the proposals were owner-occupiers (63% either strongly agreeing or agreeing), whereas 36% of tenants either strongly agreed or agreed and 28% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Thirty percent of landlords either strongly agreed or agreed and 60% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposals. It is likely that this is due to tenants being concerned about a rise in rental amounts if the costs of obtaining a licence are passed onto them by their landlord and concern by landlords that they will have to spend money on obtaining a licence, as well as the high likelihood that items will be identified by the council which will need remediation and which will again cost the landlord money to suitably address them.
55% of respondents said that they did not, based on their experience or opinion, agree that private landlords within the district maintain their properties to a good standard and 29.6% thought that properties within the River ward Littlehampton, Hotham and Marine wards in Bognor Regis were more poorly maintained than those within the district as a whole.
The majority of respondents strongly agreed with the types of properties to be included within the proposed scheme:
|
Type of Property |
Percentage who Strongly Agree |
|---|---|
|
Houses with 3 or 4 Occupants in 2 or more households sharing facilities |
41.8% |
|
Purpose built rented flats with 3 or 4 occupants in 2 or more households sharing facilities |
34.7% |
|
Building converted into flats with 3 or 4 occupants in 2 or more households in each flat sharing facilities |
43.9% |
|
Common parts of buildings converted into section 257 flats |
28.6% |
Overall, 38.8% of respondents either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the proposed licence fee, whereas 20.4% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the proposed licence fee. Interestingly, 36% of tenants disagreed or strongly disagreed and 14% neither disagreed or agreed and only 7% agreed (although the majority (43%) responded “Don’t know”, whereas 70% of landlords strongly disagreed but 30% neither agreed nor disagreed. 28% of owner-occupiers agreed or strongly agreed and 33% either disagreed or strongly disagreed, with 23% neither agreeing nor disagreeing. 50% of “other respondents” strongly disagreed.
When asked about whether they considered that shorter licences (i.e. less than the five year norm) should be issued for those properties that are found to be sub- standard or fail to meet minimum standards during the licensing process, the overwhelming majority of respondents were in agreement, with an overall response of 78% in favour. Respondents from all categories were in agreement with this and at high percentage levels – 57% of tenants, 60% of landlords, 82% of owner-occupiers and 100% of “other” respondents, this being one of the most clear-cut responses of all the questions asked.
All respondents agreed that landlords should effectively and adequately manage their properties with an overall response rate of 91.8% agreeing or strongly agreeing. As for the proposal to issue shortened licence periods, the response rates for this question were also very clear-cut, with 57% of tenants, 80% of landlords, 78% of owner-occupiers and 66% of “other” respondents agreeing.
Almost three-quarters of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed that landlords should receive training where they fail to meet required standards, let out sub-standard properties or fail to undertake proper management or maintenance, as well as being required to undertake any remedial actions. This included 71% of tenants, 80% of landlords, 72% of owner-occupiers and 83% of “other” respondents.
When asked to rate certain statements regarding the proposed scheme, overall respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that it would:
Help tackle fire safety issues – 62.7%
Help tackle disrepair issues – 62.6%
Improve the internal condition of smaller HMOs – 60.6%
Improve the health and wellbeing of people living in HMOs – 60.6%
Support good landlords – 57.6%
Identify poorer performing landlords – 63.6%
Help reduce antisocial behaviour – 48.5%
Improve property management – 56.6%
In addition, only 19.2% of respondents overall agreed or strongly agreed that there was already sufficient management of smaller HMOs without the implementation of an additional HMO licensing scheme, with 46.5% stating that they disagreed or strongly disagreed that there was already sufficient management of smaller HMOs. Not unexpectedly, 60% of landlords agreed or strongly agreed that there is sufficient management in place with only 10% disagreeing, whereas only 14% of tenants and 13% of owner-occupiers agreed there was already suitable management in place. 14% of tenants disagreed or strongly disagreed that there is sufficient management in place (with 57% responding “Don’t know”) and 58% of owner-occupiers and 50% of “other” respondents either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing.
By introducing an additional HMO licensing scheme, it is hoped it will provide greater confidence that there are adequate safeguards in place to help ensure that people in these types of properties are provided with appropriate, safe, good-standard and affordable accommodation in private rented sector properties in the wards where the scheme is introduced. The responses received in the consultation survey are on the whole in agreement with the intentions of the council and the implementation of the proposed scheme and understanding of the reasons why such a scheme is proposed.
The results of the consultation surveys and feedback received will be provided for consideration by the council’s Environment Committee. This will determine whether any amendments or changes are needed to the scheme and whether implementation of the scheme is agreed, and the scheme designation is confirmed. Any changes that are made to the proposal after consideration of feedback will be provided to the relevant council committees for consideration.
If the decision is made to designate an additional HMO licensing scheme in the three wards, there is a statutory three-month post-designation period before the scheme can be introduced during which time there are statutory requirements that the council must follow.
Any designation will be advertised on our website as well as via other appropriate means such as in local media, and as required by legislation and statutory requirements, before its implementation. Specific requirements of any implemented additional HMO licensing scheme will be detailed on the council’s website. Additional licensing schemes operate for a period of up to five years before they need to be renewed and a new consultation undertaken. We intend any scheme to run for an initial five-year period and for it to be reviewed regularly, to ascertain if we should consider a further designation for any further period of time.
The council would be looking to commence the additional HMO licensing scheme sometime during the 2024-2025 financial year, which commences on 1 April 2024, if the decision is to designate the three wards as additional HMO licensing scheme areas.